JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Reinventing Policing: The Road to Police Reform in the United States
Brief #153 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
In the United States, the urgent need for police reform has been brought into sharp focus following high-profile incidents involving police use of force. The tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others at the hands of law enforcement have sparked nationwide protests and a deep reevaluation of policing practices.
AI and the Dumbing Down of Education
Brief #88 – Education Policy Brief
by Rudolph Lurz
In many ways, 2023 was the year of AI. ChatGPT is ubiquitous in boardrooms and classrooms alike. Its usage is prevalent across grade levels and industries. In short, AI bots can provide full essays for students… The technology is progressing faster than school districts’ capacity to keep up with it.
Updates on the Israel-Hamas War
Brief #111 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Ibrahim Castro
Updates on the Israel-Hamas War, including the current situation in Gaza, a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa, a Hamas leader killed in Beirut, attacks on ships in the Red Sea by Yemen, and more.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Brief #110 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Ibrahim Castro
A powerful earthquake hit Japan on New Year’s Day, Somalia has promised to defend its territory by “any legal means,” Argentina formally announced last week that it would not accept the invitation to join the BRICS bloc of developing economies, and more covered in this week’s review.
How Colorado and Maine Decisions Bolster The Efforts To Bar Trump From The 2024 Primary Ballots
Brief #216 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
In the last year, a number of efforts in multiple states have started to try to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot. In two states, Colorado and Maine, activists achieved their first victories in seeking to bar the former President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Wave of Congressional Departures on the Eve of a Highly Contested Election
Brief #115 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by William Bourque
In the turmoil of the past year, a historic number of Members of Congress have decided to leave their posts at the end of their terms. Many are seeking election to other offices, but the majority are simply retiring from the body.
An Interview About the Conflict with a Retired Israeli Brigadier-General
Brief #109 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Ester Avisror
An up-close and personal interview with Arie Tsidon, a retired Brigadier-General of the Israel Defense Forces, who was a prominent Senior Commander of Charuv and of Paratroopers Patrols, and served in the IDF for 25 years.
Why Was Santos Expelled and What Happens Now?
Brief #114 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
On December 1st, George Santos became the 6th member of Congress to ever be expelled. Amid growing scrutiny ever since he entered Congress, few would have thought his offenses would reach a level warranting expulsion… However, as investigations were conducted in Santos’s past, it became abundantly clear that he met this standard.
Can You Trust AI News? The Risks of Automated Journalism
Brief #105 – Technology Policy Brief
by : Mindy Spatt
The ranks of the traditional news media has shrunk in the Internet age as news became easily available for free or at low cost online. Now that artificially created news content can be had for the taking will it become a go-to source for media and cause newsrooms to disappear altogether?
A Closer Look at Trump’s Criminal Defense
A Closer Look at Trump’s Criminal Defense
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #105 | By: Abigail Hunt | November 6, 2023
Photo taken from: cnn.com
__________________________________
Former President Donald Trump faces federal charges for tampering with the 2020 election. In Florida, Trump faces federal charges for obstruction of justice and unlawful retention of highly confidential documents containing sensitive national security information, and in New York, Trump faces state charges for making payments to an adult film star in exchange for her silence in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
In late October, Trump’s attorneys filed several legal documents, including the argument that the court-required gag order preventing Trump from discussing anything related to the pending cases against him is unprecedented. His attorneys use extreme language: “Never in American history has any Court censored the speech of a political candidate.” While that may be true, it sensationalizes something that is a normal part of the legal and political process – sometimes, the law needs to create new rules for new situations. The 22nd Amendment, which limits U.S. Presidents to two terms, was not added into the U.S. Constitution until 1951, six years after Franklin Delano Roosevelt died suddenly, at the beginning of his fourth term and in his 12th year as President. President Harry Truman, FDR’s Vice President, proposed the amendment in 1947, and it was ratified four years later.
Trump’s attorneys requested the court dismiss the criminal case against him, claiming the charges violate Trump’s “First Amendment rights” and rights under the due process clause. They double down on Trump’s misinformation campaign regarding the 2020 Presidential election and walk a fine line between “we drank the Koolaid” and “we’re just doing what the boss wants.” They claim Trump qualifies for “Presidential immunity,” expressing thinly veiled disgust with the legal system for not cementing a President’s right to “carte blanche” for any alleged criminal behavior.
Our earliest legal codes, written by King Urukagina of Lagash in Mesopotamia about 2800 BCE, are few. The basis of Urukagina’s code is dark. Urukagina, like Hammurabi a thousand years later, believed in the law of retaliation, a “lex talionis” (eye for an eye) mentality. He abolished unnecessary government posts and excessive taxation. He outlawed the practice of water deprivation of the working poor. However, he also imposed strict penalties on women for adultery. In fact, his laws were reproduced nearly verbatim in Hammurabi’s Code of Law, written a millennium later, which ordered mutilation or death for certain criminals, such as thieves, cheats, and liars.
If our law had not evolved from the time of Urukagina, an argument could be made to put Trump to death for his documented dishonesty, which is never in question. Yet the due process clauses in the 5th (1791) and 14th Amendments (1868) of the U.S. Constitution share a common phrase – that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
The 5th Amendment guarantees citizens protection from the federal government. The 14th Amendment is an argument to apply the same protections for citizens from the state level. Per Cornell Law, the Supremes, as usual, vary in perspective. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the 14th Amendment is “not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness,” while Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that the amendment “protected individuals from state legislation that infringed upon their ‘privileges and immunities’ under the federal Constitution.”
Substantive (“having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable”) due process has been used as an argument for many years, dating back to the 1200s in England. “Due” is a key word – what process is “due” a person who, for example, is waiting for trial on a criminal charge? That person is due the right to a full investigation of the facts, the right to attorney representation, and the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers, among other things. Rather than the broad interpretation being directly and automatically applied, though, due process is defined in the courts on a case-by-case basis.
The interpretation of due process is muddied by the differentiation between a “right” and a “privilege,” which can and will evolve, as all language does. With each case a balance must be struck between what is best for the government, state, and public, and what is a protected right for the individual. Is the protection of “due process” for Trump in this case interpreted as a dismissal of the federal case against him in D.C.? Would a dismissal of Trump’s federal charges somehow permit harm inflicted upon the government, nation, or people go unpunished?
Trump’s federal trial is set to begin March 4, 2024.
Engagement Resources:
- Constitution Annotated, Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights. Section 3, Disqualification from Holding Office. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
- Cornell Law School. Due Process. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
- L. W. King. A History of Sumer and Akkad. July 2, 2015. The Gutenberg Project. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/49345/pg49345-images.html
Examining Competitive US House Races in the South
Examining Competitive US House Races in the South
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #107 | By: Ian Milden | November 6, 2023
Photo taken from: cnn.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives in the 2022 mid-term elections. However, the small size of the Republican majority leaves Democrats with a path to re-take the House majority. This brief will take an early look at some of the races in the South.
Policy Analysis:
Republicans shocked many pundits by only winning a four-seat majority in the House of Representatives during the midterm elections. The South has largely not been friendly to Democrats in recent election cycles due to Republicans’ control of the redistricting process and increasing hostility to the Democratic Party among white southern voters since the 1960s, so districts that can be targeted are few and far between.
Virginia’s second district was one of the few seats where a Democratic incumbent was defeated for re-election. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) defeated Elaine Luria (D-VA) in 2022 to win the seat. The seat is a swing district based on the coast of Virginia. The district includes multiple military installations, so veterans have been successful in recent versions of this district.
There are a pair of districts in Florida that Democrats have recently held that could be competitive if Democrats are interested in competing for them again. The 13th District, which is based in Pinellas County, was vacated by Charlie Crist (D-FL) when he ran for governor. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) won the vacant seat and will run for reelection. The district lines were redrawn to be a little more favorable to Republicans, which may push it further down the priority list for national Democratic organizations.
Democrats could also target Florida’s 27th district, which is in the Miami area. It is currently represented by Congresswoman Maria Salazar (R-FL). However, Democrats have performed poorly in the Miami area during the last two election cycles. The poor performance in Miami has had an effect on statewide races, and Democrats have responded by investing in other elections outside of Florida, so I would be surprised if they make a serious effort to flip this seat.
South Texas is becoming contested territory. Democrats hold two districts here, the 28th (represented by Henry Cuellar) and the 34th (represented by Vicente Gonzalez), but Republicans took over the neighboring 15th district in 2022 (Monica De La Cruz is the representative). Democrats had no issue holding these districts until recent election cycles. The challenges Democrats are facing in these districts are driven by changes in voting patterns by Hispanic voters. If Democrats continue to lose voters in these south Texas districts, that will hurt their chances of competing in statewide elections.
There are a few other notable seats that Democrats will have to defend. Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) represents the 7th district in Virginia. This district runs from northern Virginia to Fredericksburg. Spanberger has won close races since winning this seat in 2018, though Republicans such as Eric Cantor and Dave Brat have held recent versions of this seat. While Spanberger is reportedly considering a run for Governor in 2025, she is running for reelection
Democrats will also have to defend an open seat in Virginia’s 10th district, where Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) is retiring to focus on her health issues. The seat is based in the northern Virginia suburbs near Washington DC, which is becoming friendlier territory for Democratic candidates. It is unclear who the nominees will be in this district.
Democrats won several seats in North Carolina after a court ruled that Republicans could not proceed with another heavily gerrymandered map. Republicans have filed a lawsuit to allow the Republican-controlled state legislature to redraw the maps with a heavy Republican gerrymander. Republicans recently took a majority on the state Supreme Court after the state legislature made state Supreme Court elections partisan, and the new Republican majority voted to allow the state legislature to draw gerrymandered maps. If Republicans implement a gerrymander, Democrats could lose three or four US House seats in North Carolina.
Democrats have had some good news regarding redistricting in the South. In the case Allen vs Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama’s current congressional map was illegally gerrymandered based on race. Court-ordered redistricting will likely create a district in Alabama that Democrats can at least compete in if it isn’t a safe seat for Democrats. Alabama Republicans’ attempts to avoid compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling have not fared well in subsequent federal court hearings.
Louisiana will also be required to redraw its Congressional maps to create a second majority-black district after the Supreme Court declined to take up Louisiana’s appeal of a lower court ruling. A federal court ruled that Georgia’s congressional district maps violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered the maps to be redrawn in the coming weeks. It is unclear what the partisan impact will be, though Republicans will likely make every effort to avoid losing seats. Other larger southern states may have similarly drawn maps, which could result in more court-ordered redistricting, though there is a substantial chance that other southern states may not be ordered to redraw their maps until after the 2024 elections.
Engagement Resources:
- DCCC Website, Official Campaign Arm of House Democrats, https://dccc.org/
A Look at the Racketeering Case Against Trump in Georgia
A Look at the Racketeering Case Against Trump in Georgia
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #106 | By: Abigail Hunt | November 6, 2023
Photo taken from: newsweek.com
__________________________________
In the state of Georgia, Trump is currently out on a $200,000 bond for 13 felony indictments. The individuals charged alongside Trump are a familiar roster of faces from his presidency and campaign. Trump & Co. face charges related to their orchestrated attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Each faces criminal racketeering charges under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Pending charges in Georgia against Trump and his 18 co-defendants include:
- falsifying votes
- persuasion, intimidation, harassment, and threats of state officials, including election workers and electors.
- employing people to cast fake electoral college votes in favor of Trump.
- tampering with voting machines
In addition to those listed above, Trump faces 12 additional counts, including solicitation of a public official to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery with false electors, conspiring to commit false statements, making false statements, conspiring to file false documents, perjury, and filing false writings.
Trump’s co-defendants are a laundry list of former political appointees and legal associates:
- Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff
- Jeffrey Clark, former assistant U.S. attorney general
- Michael Roman, Trump campaign worker and White House aide
- Sidney Powell, attorney for 2020 Trump election campaign
- Jenna Ellis, attorney
- Kenneth Chesebro, attorney for 2020 Trump election campaign
- Ray Smith III, attorney
- Rudolph Giuliani, attorney
- Robert Cheeley, attorney
- John Eastman, attorney
- Stephen Lee, police chaplain
- Misty Hampton, Elections Director, Coffee County, GA (former)
- Harrison Floyd, Director, Black Voices for Trump
- Trevian Kutti, publicist
- Scott Hall, bail bondsman (Atlanta)
- Shawn Still, GOP chair (GA) (former)
- Cathleen Latham, GOP county chair, (Coffee County, GA) (former)
- David Shafer, GOP chair (GA) (former)
As is usually the case with co-defendants, they have started signing plea deals to testify on behalf of the state in exchange for reduced sentencing. First among those to deal was bondsman Scott Hall, who pled guilty in September to five misdemeanors for his role in interfering with the 2020 election process. Hall’s convictions include conspiracy to unlawfully access voter information and ballot-counting machines at the county election office. In October, three more pleas followed, these for Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis. Chesebro pleaded guilty to the felony charge of filing false documents wherein Trump and his cohorts employed “false electors” to file votes for Trump with the National Archives and Congress – false documentation which Chesebro created and distributed – in states where Joe Biden won. Chesebro’s punishment? Five years’ probation and a $5,000 fine. Powell, who spread false rumors of voter fraud, pleaded guilty to several misdemeanors for tampering with election equipment and received probation. The week after pleading out, Powell took to Truth Social and Telegram to de-cry the D.A.’s office for “extortion” in negotiating a plea deal with her and to continue to spread misinformation about the 2020 election. Ellis pleaded guilty to one of the two felony charges she faced, for aiding and abetting false statements and writings. The foursome – depending on their behavior and if their plea deals “stick” – will be state witnesses against their co-defendants in Georgia court. These plea deals lay the groundwork for solidifying both the Georgia and D.C. cases against Trump, both cases stemming from Trump & Co.’s conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Each co-defendant gives their statement as a part of their plea deal. These statements are collected to paint a clear step-by-step picture of the criminal actions. When the federal trial against Trump in D.C. begins in spring 2024, each co-defendant who has made an agreement with the D.A. will likely offer their testimony in both trials. So far, Trump and 14 others have pled not guilty, indicating their desire to go to trial to fight the charges. However, there is “many a slip twixt a cup and a lip,” and the defense attorneys for the other co-defendants are likely already negotiating with Willis’s office to cement the best outcomes for their clients. MSNBC and CNN report six other co-defendants are in discussion with the D.A. for a plea deal, including Misty Hampton and Michael Roman. Reportedly, attorney Robert Cheeley already received an offer.
Trump continues to spout off on social media. Ol’ 45’s tirades are now somewhat limited in their capacity; he is under court order requiring he remain silent on co-defendants and witnesses in his case. Court-ordered silence will hopefully keep co-defendants from conspiring with one another and attempting to influence those who might testify against them. The more important desired outcome of that silence is that the district attorney’s narrative, once presented in court, will shock the jury so that conviction is more likely.
An Orthodox Jewish View of the Israel-Hamas Conflict
An Orthodox Jewish View of the Israel-Hamas Conflict
Foreign Policy Brief #98 | By: Ester Avisror | November 6, 2023
Photo taken from: nytimes.com
__________________________________
International news outlets are now inundated by coverage of one conflict – the Hamas-Israel war since the terror attacks of Hamas on Israeli soil on October 7, 2023. The roots of the conflict go back to long-held, seemingly intractable opposing views held by (some not all) Israelis and (some not all) Palestinians.
The following is one such view, that speaks pessimistically for many within Israel’s growing religious Jewish demographic. It justifies Israel’s military incursion into Gaza in terms of Old Testament religious values. It matches Hamas’s use of Islam to justify the extinction of Jews with the use of old Testament scripture to justify whatever it takes to “exterminate” Hamas. Here is an edited version of a conversation with an Israeli orthodox rabbi.
Rabbi Shimon Levi, age 57, is a biblical scholar, Jewish arbitrator, mohel, marriage officiator, a certified kosher butcher, and community rabbi. He has performed many Orthodox Jewish conversions during the past 25 years of his career. His view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is translated from Hebrew to English as follows, “The conflict has always been and will always be”. Citing Jewish legal tradition and exegesis, Rabbi Levi explains: “Esau [in reference to various anti-Jewish peoples] hates Jacob. And why was the Bible given on Mount Sinai? In order to teach that there is human hatred toward Israel, As Hamas described their “holy war” for global Jewish genocide within their founding covenant, Rabbi Levi describes Israel’s conflict with Hamas in terms of cosmic, spiritual hatred across generations.
He states that Israel’s retaliation towards Hamas is undoubtedly justified on the basis of Jewish principles of defense, as written in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 72:1), “If someone is coming to kill you, hurry to kill him first”. Moreover, Rabbi Levi affirms, “After all, these people [Hamas] were each born [and indoctrinated] to become a “shahid” (‘martyr’ in Arabic) – a child that grows up to kill every Jew and die in consequence, in order to be sent to ‘the Garden of Eden’ [as interpreted by Hamas’s extremist Islamic leaders]. This is their claimed divine commandment. Therefore, Israel’s retaliation is definitely justified. [These people] are called the ‘Seed of Amalek’”.
In increasing instances, some figures in Israeli society have controversially invoked the biblical term for “Amalek” in reference to Hamas – a people mentioned in the Bible that repeatedly molested and sought to exterminate the ancient Israelites in the exodus from Egypt, until they were exterminated under divine sanction by the Israelites instead. However, Rabbi Levi makes the clarification between destroying Hamas and protecting Gazan civilians. He emphasizes that humanitarian needs for Palestinians must be addressed with close supervision by Israel, and/or partnering states, since anything delivered to the Gaza Strip, including water, gas, and medicine are forcibly seized by Hamas – hence, explaining the suffering of most Gazan civilians. “Once this war is over, whatever will be determined, will be determined. Gaza needs to be under the control of another leadership, not Hamas, because people suffer at the hands of these terrorists”.
In his view, the conflict will not severely impact Israel, nor will anything influence Israel to swerve from its mission to destroy Hamas. “This nation [Israel] will always be strong God-willing – everything will be alright”.
Rabbi Levi also stresses that overall Jewish resolve is unwavering on ousting Hamas, not merely short-term humanitarian demands, “Rabbis from all different denominations say, no one is declaring that we need to pursue this [cause] in a ‘good’ way; instead, we need to pursue this [cause] in the strongest way that there is, and to totally exterminate [Hamas’s] culture of death completely, by elevating the culture of life!” Rabbi Levi concludes his views by stating, that Hamas committed atrocities more unabashedly brutal than the Nazis committed in the Holocaust. “The Nazis tried to hide their crimes – here Hamas did not hide anything. In their own helmets they were filming what they did – we cannot begin to describe all that they did – they did terrible, inhuman things!”.
In The Shadow of the Israel-Hamas Conflict: One Palestinian Perspective
In The Shadow of the Israel-Hamas Conflict: One Palestinian Perspective
Foreign Policy Brief #97 | By: Aziza Taslaq | November 6, 2023
Photo taken from: bnn.network
__________________________________
The Israel-Hamas conflict, a decades-long struggle, has had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary Palestinian citizens. In this interview, we dig deeper into the experiences and perspectives of Sara, a young woman from the West Bank with roots in the city of Nablus, Palestine. One thing I should mention is that Sara does not support Hamas, but she does not condemn it either; she believes in the right to resist. Her story reflects the complex emotions and challenges many Palestinians face in the region.
daily life has been fundamentally shaped by the Israel-Hamas Sara’s conflict. She has been affected psychologically and physically. Since the conflict began, Sara has started to suffer from insomnia due to the images and videos she watches on social media platforms. She has also suffered from eye pain and hand joint stiffness because of her lack of sleep and overuse of her phone during this challenging time.
Every night, Israeli soldiers enter the city she lives in, Nablus, and she can hear gunfire. The West Bank is now riddled with checkpoints, and cities are commonly locked down. The presence of settlers adds a layer of threats, making ordinary life a constant struggle. Living in a state of insecurity is emotionally draining, taking a toll on Sara’s mental well-being.
Tragedy has struck Sara’s life as well. She recently lost a schoolmate to ongoing violence. Her friends in Gaza, too, bear the scars of the conflict. One friend was shot in the hand and had to treat his wounds independently due to limited access to medical facilities. Another friend, Anas, who now resides in Turkey, has suffered the profound loss of seven family members, including his brother, three nephews, an uncle, and two cousins.
Sara’s perspective on how the conflict should end reflects a deep longing for justice and peace. In her view, the resolution lies in Israelis leaving Palestinian territories. She makes a crucial distinction between peaceful Jews and those she holds responsible for the crimes committed. Sara does not endorse the two-state solution, asserting that the land belongs to Palestinians who were forcibly displaced. She envisions an independent Palestinian state coexisting with peaceful Jewish individuals who share the history of the land.
Sara seeks a just outcome that includes an end to the Gaza blockade. Her dream is of a Palestinian state free from Israeli presence while welcoming peaceful Jews who have been a part of historic Palestine. She advocates for the rights of Palestinians who were displaced from their homes, lands, and possessions.
Sara, like many Palestinians, believes that governance in Gaza should be transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of its citizens. She aspires to see democratic elections and a government that prioritizes the well-being and aspirations of the people. Despite the current control of Gaza by Hamas, she holds hope for a government that serves the interests of its people.
The Israel-Hamas conflict has cast a long shadow over the lives of ordinary Palestinian citizens, with Sara’s story offering a poignant illustration of their experiences, opinions, and dreams for a brighter future. It is still a difficult path to achieve permanent peace, which has been severely torn and complicated by the conflict. Sara, like many others, is desperate for the right solution that can bring about peace and prosperity to all those affected by the conflict.
CRISPR Gene Editing: Medical Breakthrough or Ethical Minefield?
CRISPR Gene Editing: Medical Breakthrough or Ethical Minefield?
Health and Gender Policy Brief #167 | By: Inijah Quadri | November 1, 2023
Photo taken from: discovermagazine.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) gene editing, with its revolutionary implications in genetic engineering, stands at the intersection of medical innovation and profound ethical dilemmas. While it offers avenues for advanced therapies in medicine and sustainable practices in agriculture, it simultaneously throws us into an ethical labyrinth. The promises of CRISPR are undoubtedly enticing, but the underlying concerns regarding its long-term implications, especially when it comes to tampering with the very fabric of life, are undeniable.
How CRISPR Works:
CRISPR basically operates as a type of genetic ‘scissors’. It allows scientists to target specific strands of DNA within the nucleus of a cell and make precise changes, either by deleting or replacing specific genes. This mechanism is derived from a naturally occurring defense mechanism in bacteria, which they use to fend off viral attacks. By programming the Cas9 protein to target a specific location in the DNA, researchers can achieve an unparalleled level of precision in gene editing.
Policy Analysis:
The ethical landscape of gene editing, particularly in humans, is multifaceted and contentious. A central debate emerges: does our capacity to make these alterations imply a moral or ethical endorsement to proceed? This was brought to stark attention in 2018 with a Chinese scientist’s announcement of creating the first CRISPR-edited babies, engineered to be resistant to HIV. The aspiration to eradicate a debilitating disease is undoubtedly noble, but the action was met with global scientific denouncement due to the profound ethical implications and the unknown long-term consequences for both the edited children and their progeny.
A further area of contention lies in the potential for “designer babies,” wherein genetic selection could allow parents to pre-determine their child’s attributes, ranging from physical appearance to cognitive abilities. This sparks worries about perpetuating social inequalities, where genetic enhancements become a luxury only the affluent can afford. Furthermore, the philosophical debate arises over the morality of humans determining and potentially commodifying life’s very essence.
In the agricultural realm, CRISPR’s applications are no less controversial. On one hand, the technology holds the promise of producing crops resistant to pests, potentially decreasing our reliance on harmful pesticides. On the other hand, such genetic alterations could have unforeseen repercussions on the environment. A modification in one species might trigger unforeseen consequences throughout the broader ecosystem, potentially endangering biodiversity.
Beyond the contentious spheres, CRISPR technology has facilitated groundbreaking medical and scientific advancements. A significant example of its contribution is in the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine. By understanding and manipulating genetic information, scientists could expedite vaccine research, leading to timely solutions in combating the pandemic. Additionally, CRISPR holds potential in treating a range of genetic disorders, offering hope to many patients with conditions that were previously deemed untreatable. Such successes underscore the importance of continued exploration and responsible application of this powerful tool.
Overall, to navigate the complexities of CRISPR ethically, a dynamic and robust regulatory framework is imperative, one that can evolve with the swift pace of scientific discoveries. A collaborative approach is paramount, involving scientists, policymakers, ethicists, and society at large to engage in a constructive discourse. While frameworks like the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s research and guidelines offer some direction, there’s a clear and urgent need for more exhaustive global policies.
So far, the call in 2019 for a global moratorium on editing the human germline, which entails genetic changes that can be passed on to future generations, epitomizes this spirit of international collaboration. Such endeavors ensure that the myriad decisions surrounding CRISPR are not made in isolation but reflect a collective global commitment to ethical progress. And, while progress may be gradual, it is essential that important stakeholders firmly establish personal ethical boundaries to safeguard the future of both humanity and the natural world.
Engagement Resources:
- Innovative Genomics Institute (https://www.innovativegenomics.org/): A leading research entity dedicated to advancing genome editing technologies and addressing their ethical, legal, and societal implications.
- The Broad Institute (https://www.broadinstitute.org/): A leader in CRISPR research, providing extensive resources on the science, ethics, and policy implications of gene editing.
- The Hastings Center (https://www.thehastingscenter.org/): An independent research institute addressing the societal impact of advances in medicine and biology, including gene editing.
- The Center for Genetics and Society (https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/): A nonprofit organization advocating for responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies.
- The National Human Genome Research Institute (https://www.genome.gov/): Offers resources on the human genome, genetic diseases, and the ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic research.
Biden’s New Office of Gun Violence Prevention is More Necessary than Ever
Biden’s New Office of Gun Violence Prevention is More Necessary than Ever
Social Justice Policy Brief #151 | By: Arvind Salem | November 6, 2023
Photo taken from: apnews.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
On September 21, 2023, President Biden announced the creation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to be led by Vice President Harris, who has already amassed a lengthy record in combating gun violence during her tenure as the Attorney General of California, along with gun violence prevention experts Stefanie Feldman, Greg Jackson, and Rob Wilcox.
The purpose of the new office is to act as an enforcement mechanism for prior gun safety legislation: most prominently The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted in 2022. This was the first major federal gun safety bill in nearly 30 years, which closed major loopholes and strengthened gun violence prevention policies, and perhaps most importantly expanded access to mental health services to address the root causes of gun violence.
The Office of Gun Violence Prevention represents a key legislative triumph for gun violence activists and young voters as a whole. The bill was introduced by Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (FL-10), who is the only member of GenZ in Congress and was the former organizing director for March for our Lives, an organization founded by survivors of the Parkland School shooting to advocate for gun violence prevention legislation, along with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and numerous other gun violence prevention organizations.
Policy Analysis:
Politically, this is clearly an effort from President Biden to reach young voters. Stronger gun violence prevention legislation is a key priority for young voters and Biden made the issue a key cornerstone of his 2020 presidential campaign. A poll conducted by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that 64 percent of 18-to 29-year-olds believe that gun control laws in the United States should be more strict. In the leadup to the 2024 election, this is a surefire way to energize young voters, and also allows Biden to run on the fact that he made some progress on an issue that has been notoriously overlooked in terms of enacting important legislative changes and substantially strengthening enforcement of existing policies.
Beyond the cynical view that this is purely a political ploy, gun violence is a major issue in American life, and the younger voting demographic’s response to this issue is partially due to the devastating effects it’s had on their lives. Firearms are the number one killer of children in the United States. At the time of the announcement, over 1,000 children between the ages of 12-17 died from guns.
However, the rising prevalence of mass shootings has made gun violence an issue that can no longer be confined to any one age group. After the latest mass shooting in Maine that killed 18 people and wounded 13 others, it is becoming clear that gun violence prevention needs to become a national priority. This isn’t an isolated incident: there have been nearly 2 mass shootings per day in 2023. This new office is at the very least a governmental acknowledgement of the problem and a commitment to exploring for solutions to a problem that 60% of Americans believe is a very big problem in the United States today.
Engagement Resources:
- March for Our Lives – March for Our Lives is an advocacy organization founded by survivors of the Parkland school shooting that aims to develop and advocate for gun violence prevention policies.
- Everytown for Gun Safety – Everytown for Gun Safety is a non profit organization that seeks to educate people about the effects of gun violence and advocate for responsible gun safety legislation. They have nearly 10,000 members across all walks of life.
- Brady – Brady is an organization named after the bipartisan Brady gun law enacted in 1993 and works to further the spirit of that law currently by educating the public, advocating for legislation, and contributing to pro-bono legal services to challenge gun lobbies in court.
Democrats Should’ve Saved Kevin McCarthy
Democrats Should’ve Saved Kevin McCarthy
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #104 | By: Arvind Salem | November 1, 2023
Photo taken from: axios.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
On October 25,2023, Representative Mike Johnson won the floor vote to become the new Speaker of the House, leaving the House without a speaker for 22 days. This saga, kicked off after the ousting of former speaker McCarthy, was emblematic of the battle between the far-right and moderate wings of the Republican party.
The effort to oust McCarthy, spearheaded by Representative Matt Gaetz, was initiated after he compromised with Democrats to pass two compromise bills to raise the debt ceiling and avert a government shutdown. The compromises were broadly acceptable to both sides, however due to the Republican’s narrow majority in the House it only took 8 dissatisfied members to oust McCarthy, as Democrats stood idly by. Throughout his tenure, McCarthy has made many moves to placate the right wing of the party (including his decision to open an impeachment inquiry into Biden with scant evidence). As a result, McCarthy was ultimately too far left for the extremist members of his caucus, but too far right for Democrats to want to save. Shortly after, McCarthy declared he would not run to regain his Speakership.
Republicans tried to rally behind Steve Scalise (the House Majority Leader). When it became clear Scalise didn’t have enough votes, they nominated Jim Jordan( Chair of the House Judiciary Committee), who went through three agonizing votes before the Republicans voted to withdraw him. Shortly after, they nominated Doug Emmer, whose candidacy was doomed nearly immediately after he faced resistance from the right flank and was rebuked by former President Donald Trump. After three failed attempts, and multiple rounds of infighting during both the nomination and voting processes, the Republicans finally settled on Mike Johnson (R-LA.), who is emblematic of the far right shift of the Republican party.
Policy Analysis:
Unfortunately, the speakership is now in the hands of a “extreme right-wing ideologue” (according to Hakeem Jeffries). Johnson’s track record has been extensively publicized: his staunchly anti-LGBTQ beliefs and track record (even attempting to introduce a federal version of the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”), peddling 2020 elections conspiracies and his belief that Trump actually won it Johnson believes in radically cutting down social services, including essentially ending Social Security and Medicare.
However, the bigger problem is that this could’ve been avoided if Democrats had simply allowed Kevin McCarthy to remain speaker. Yes, McCarthy wasn’t perfect, but he was still willing to compromise and make some deals with Democrats when the country was at stake. Of course, the political calculations involved in this are exceedingly simple: let the Republicans throw themselves in disarray and watch them burn. With 2024 on the horizon that may be the best electoral strategy for Democrats to flip the House during the election, and possibly ride the wave in other races. Even that calculation is extremely narrow. Democrats could’ve allowed Republicans to devolve into chaos, but still save them in the end, allowing them to capitalize on the Republicans’ dysfunction, but still boast that they saved them in the end, appealing to moderate voters who are likely to decide major elections.
The best thing for the country undoubtably would’ve been to save McCarthy. The pressure from the far right made it clear that they were holding the Republicans hostage and were not going to settle for anything more moderate than McCarthy, making it a certainty that the new Speaker was going to be even worse than McCarthy was. The best solution would’ve been to settle for the lesser of the two evils and throw McCarthy a lifeline. Now, after both sides playing politics (albeit one for more admirable aims than the other), the country is left with a Speaker more extreme than before, which threatens to worsen polarization and gridlock when both are already at all time highs. This moment could’ve been used to heal the country, with one side extending an olive branch to the other, but instead we’ve become even more fractured with no solution on the horizon.
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center – The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy and argues against many practices today such as gerrymandering and mass incarceration. Readers who are concerned about the health of democracy in light of this new Speaker may wish to support the Brennan Center and help it advance its proposed reforms to fix the political process.
- ActBlue – ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers who are concerned about Republicans in power may wish to donate to some of these organizations.
- The Bridge Alliance – The Bridge Alliance is a collective working to act against political polarization. Those worried about polarization in light of these events may wish to contribute to this organization.
The Oil from Fracking Flows Freely in a Fractured Society
The Oil from Fracking Flows Freely in a Fractured Society
Environmental Policy Brief #162 | By: Todd J. Broadman | October 31, 2023
Photo taken from: nypost.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
The U.S. policy of energy independence is no more apparent than in the oil and gas fracking industry. This need for carbon energy has led to thousands of new oil leases and the increased oil extraction has moved the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia as the globe’s biggest oil producer. The related policies and resulting drilling activity has come at a cost. Fracking technology now allows operators to drill vertically, and then horizontally for thousands of feet. To do that requires mammoth quantities of water: as much as 40 million gallons per gas well. Water in deep aquifers that, once extracted, will not be replenished for generations. In addition, the resulting wastewater from this process contains arsenic, salts, radium, and other toxic chemicals. Alarming levels of methane are released as well. At large scale, these projects are termed “monster fracks.” Approximately 80 percent of current U.S. natural gas production and 65 percent of crude oil now comes from fracked wells; more than 17.6 million Americans reside within a mile of a fracked oil or gas well.
In states like Texas where 40 percent of fracked wells are located, frackers require no permits to drill their own groundwater wells, much less compliance regulations that require reporting. Ironically, there are water restrictions in place for residential users throughout drought-stricken communities in Texas while vast unregulated quantities of water are extracted for fracked wells. The oil and gas lobbies have effectively paralyzed Congress from holding the industry accountable for its environmental damage.
Federal policies have given states like Texas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania a green light to keep drilling. The Biden administration has actually approved more drilling permits, over 6,500 of them, than the Trump administration. These, along with other existing leases represent close to 24 million acres of public land. Although the Interior Department has made modest reforms regarding lease rules, there is no overarching policy to curtail or otherwise end fracking. If the U.S. actually applied United Nations recommendations to address climate change, all oil and gas extraction would end by 2031. A full quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases are attributed to fossil fuel extraction. The U.S. along with other OECD countries are, for the most part, turning a blind eye to this recommendation and to the longer-term consequences.
Among the groups with the strongest opposition to fracking and oil exploration, are, in general, coalitions of native tribes, community residents, and environmental groups. For example, in Colorado, residents fear a proposed fracking project will contaminate a local reservoir. In the big fracking states, these groups are suing with evidence-based claims that fracking is consuming and poisoning finite water resources and is a real health threat. One study found that pregnant women residing in the Eagle Ford Shale region of Texas “had 50 percent greater odds of giving birth prematurely than those who did not.”
The science points to very real risks though. The EPA has tracked 180,000 fracked wells and estimates that each day 2 billion gallons of toxic wastewater require safe disposal. This was water that was injected to fracture shale under pressure and then returned to the surface. A 2022 paper in the Journal of Health Economics concluded there is correlation with increased preterm births and low birth weight: “drilling near an infant’s public water source yields poorer birth outcomes and more fracking-related contaminants in public drinking water.”
For their part, the industry is “focused on meeting the growing demand for affordable, reliable energy while minimizing impacts on the environment,” according to the American Petroleum Institute’s Holly Hopkins. Confronted with university research that documents the ill health effects of fracking wells to local residents, the Marcellus Shale Coalition countered that these published studies “relied on statistical modeling rather than actual exposure,” adding that these are activists attempting to “drive more dollars to already well-funded activist organizations.” Monster frackers like BP are making public relations efforts to appease concerned communities, stating that they are “executing several pilot projects to recycle water to minimize freshwater usage.” Like BP, Chevron claims it uses “brackish or recycled water” for fracking.
Policy Analysis:
Not only is the United States the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, at fracking’s current pace of development there will be the equivalent of 454 new coal plants by 2050. The Permian basin is rich in oil and covers 86,000 square miles in Texas and accounts for 40% of all U.S. oil extraction. Wells there have to be drilled to longer and longer lengths to get at the oil and gas and that equates to vastly greater water requirements. “As the easier-to-extract areas are tapped to their full potential, you need to use more and more desperate measures,” said A.J. Kondash, a scientist with RTI International. Those desperate measures find justification by an industry that rests upon the fact that natural gas gives off about half the CO2 gas as coal.
Critics see a spiraling of negative environmental consequences as scarce aquifers, made even scarcer by droughts, are being depleted by fracking operations that contribute significantly to furthering global heat and drought. Jeremy Nichols, program director with WildEarth Guardians points to a glaring lack of political will. “While it’s shameful President Biden is not living up to his promise to pause new oil and gas leasing to protect the climate,” he emphasized, “it’s even more shameful he’s rubberstamped Trump-era leases.” And while the critics lament, industry supporters celebrate the U.S.’s deserved energy independence and a strengthened economy.
The shift to sustainable energy sources is far too slow to replace the carbon that fuels America. There needs to be a willingness among the majority of citizens to alter lifestyles, to change a culture of consumption. Lacking that, the drilling will continue unabated as a further sign of a fractured and fragile society.
Engagement Resources:
- https://e360.yale.edu/ Yale Environment 360 offers opinion, analysis, reporting, and debate on global environmental issues.
- https://environmentamerica.org/ is a national network of 30 state environmental groups. Their staff work together for clean air, clean water, clean energy, wildlife and open spaces, and a livable climate.
- https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is expanding and accelerating its contributions to scientific knowledge of human health and the environment, and to the health and well-being of people everywhere.
Will Airbnb Restrictions Save Renters?
Will Airbnb Restrictions Save Renters?
Technology Policy Brief #100 | By: Mindy Spatt | October 31, 2023
Photo taken from: kcur.org
__________________________________
Policy Summary
As Airbnb vacation rentals have proliferated in cities across the globe, local renters have seen rapidly rising prices and far fewer housing units available. Advocates are pushing back and winning restrictions. Whether or not the trend can be reserved may depend on how vigorously those restrictions can be enforced.
Policy Analysis
In the face of rising rents for fewer apartments, New York recently joined the list of cities restricting apartment owners from using their properties for short term rentals alone. New York’s new rules will limit short term rentals to no more than two guests at a time, and require hosts to reside in the unit they are offering. Under the regulations, owners must be able to prove residency or face fines of up to $5,000.
The change is expected to dramatically decrease the number of short term vacation rentals available in New York and consequently increase the very limited number of rentals available for people to live in, especially in the more popular neighborhoods. Neighbors hope for fewer problems with the noise, mess and disruptions that often come along with vacation rentals.
While Airbnb fought hard against the rules, claiming its’ presence in the city was purely beneficial, studies by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) and others confirm that an “increase in Airbnb listings is causally associated with an….increase in rental rates….and negatively correlated with the share of homes in the market for long-term rentals.” Other studies by the HBR found that racial discrimination was rampant on the platform, with fewer owners willing to rent to African Americans and African American hosts earning less money.
Here in the Bay Area, Oakland is considering new restrictions and city leaders are consulting major housing organizations including East Bay for Everyone, the Homeless Advocacy Working Group and the Oakland Tenant’s Union to hammer out the details. Limitations on renting out multiple properties similar to the New York rules are under consideration, including only allowing hosts to use their own residences for short term rentals. Also likely are limits on the number of nights a host can rent their property out. Advocates want Airbnb and other platforms held accountable for requiring hosts to be licensed. They also want a 24-hour hotline for neighbors to be able to report any issues related to short term rentals. For the rules to have the desired impact, they will have to be enforced.
In Los Angeles, where commercial hosts owning multiple properties is common, a Home Sharing Ordinance imposed similar restrictions on landlord hosts in 2019. However, three years after the restrictions were put in place, Better Neighbors LA released a study concluding “there remains an extraordinarily high rate of non-compliance by hosts and platforms. In the past year, an average of 4,272 STRs were advertised for rent each month, and, according to the City’s own data, more than half failed to comply” with the requirements of the ordinance.
According to the group, “The City exerted little effort to enforce the Ordinance, issuing only 27 fines and collecting a mere $9,827 for the entire year.” They conclude “the high level of illegal STR activity in LA is largely the result of the City’s failure to fully utilize certain enforcement measures…..”
Renters in New York and Oakland are surely hoping for better outcomes in their cities.
Engagement Resources:
- Better Neighbors LA, https://www.betterneighborsla.org
- Inside Airbnb- Adding Data to the Debate, http://insideairbnb.com/explore/
- The Use of Short-Term Rentals by Digital Nomads Is Pricing Out Residents of Mexico City. Here’s What the City Can Do about It, by Jorge González-Hermoso, Luisa Godinez-Puig, December 20, 2022, Urban Wire, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/use-short-term-rentals-digital-nomads-pricing-out-residents-mexico-city-heres-what-city